|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
515
   |
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Chibi Andy wrote:lol don't like the metric system?? you can always leave  only 3 countries don't use the metric system the US, liberia and burma. therefore your argument about the world using "feets" as measurements are wrong 
Then there is England, which is officially metric, but nobody on the BBC seems to use it.
I remember watching something with an officer from the Royal Marines and the host said something like, "this water shouldn't get more than about three meters deep."
The Marine responded, "That's about ten feet, right?" |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
515
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:
I will state this though, America flipped to metric would screw its economy over. Transportation costs would be the most fubared followed by sales of other liquids such as milk.
I'm not sure about that, rather from a historical perspective, American traditional measurements (not the same as Imperial, BTW) were among the first modern attempts to standardize a scientific system of measurements. While the U.S. was still stuck with the baggage of England's furlongs and fortnights (and extra "u"s everywhere), men like Jefferson and Franklin were trying to reform these systems and modernize them. This standardization was occuring concurrently with the early adoption of metric in Revolutionary France.
For instance, an Imperial pint is roughly 1.25 pounds of water, while an American pint was originally defined as the volume of one pound of rainwater (thought pure at the time) at room temperature.
This allowed for the pint and the pound to both be equal to 16 ounces of "pure" water in the same way that a cubic centimeter is a milliliter is a gram of water.
The major difference between American (US) measurements and Metric (SI) is that SI is based on powers of 10 while US is based on powers of 2.
Hmm... I wonder which system is more efficient for coding embedded binary...  |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
518
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 18:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:When everything is obviously scaled by feet? Seriously though 
If I understand the OP correctly, the question is why the measurements given in the Attributes do not appear to be accurate in game play.
Given that dropclones are 7 to 8 feet (~2.3m average), that would suggest that the blast radius of most Locus Grenades should be more than twice the height of the guy who is standing next to it.
That is testable, although it would be easier in a corp battle.
It is also possible that the damage is based on a curve. In that case, then the damage may be reduced to virtually nil at the outermost extreme range.
For instance, a 6m grenade that inflicts 400 HP at ground zero might inflict 350 at 2m, 250 at 3m, 100 at 4m, 30 at 5m, and 10 at 6m.
If this is the case, it's frustrating but really cool at the same time. Then again, I wish Dust had grenades with a full damage radius of 5m and a casualty radius of 15, like we have today. |
Vaerana Myshtana
Bojo's School of the Trades
523
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 00:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
General Tiberius1 wrote:4447 wrote:I'm english and ask a british person how they have their milk and beer. ypu are making less sense then usual 4447
Gallons and pints.
Who rolls into Ye Olde Publick House and orders "568ml of Bitter"? |
|
|
| |
|